Monthly Archives: June 2008

I picked this book up on a whim.  I was in the memoir/autobiography (what is the official difference?!) section and just picked it up and read the flap.  I was intrigued and made an impulse buy.  Wow.  It is so hard for me to say what another person would think of this book because I just found it so moving subjectively.  I feel like the writing must be good because I have certainly been known to get distracted from a good story if it is written badly.  But really I just felt such a strong kinship with the main character and found the similarities between our lives striking.

Rachel Sontag grew up in a middle/upper class Jewish home with an extremely emotionally abusive father, a passive and potentially mentally ill mother, and a sister who found a way to disappear instead of bearing the brunt of her father’s cruelty.  Rachel struggles to survive in this environment and becomes increasingly self aware of how she has been forced to cope and how these coping skills stop being effective outside the strange world that is her family.

While Rachel’s father is overtly emotionally abusive, telling Rachel that he wishes she was never born, that she is scum, etc., her mother at times acknowledges her father’s “sickness” (as they call it) and at times is entirely complicit in his abuse.  When Rachel’s mother asks her, “What do you want from me?”  Rachel thinks, “I wanted her.  I wanted Mom to be someone she wasn’t, to take on a strength she never possessed, to do what I hoped I would have done in her situation.  I thought that mothers were naturally inclined to protect their children, and she was failing.  I thought she should have expected more from love, and I held her to my own standards of love, which were conceptual and formed merely in opposition to hers and had yet to be tested in the world.”  Rachel’s mother repeatedly reminds her that “This is your family.  No family is perfect.”  And Rachel vacillates between a fierce love for her and a need to abandon her trust in her mother.

While Rachel is desperate to escape her home she is also trapped by thinking how difficult it would be to make it on her own.  After a brief stint in foster care she decides she will make it through the next two years by shutting down and spending as much time away from home as possible.  She makes it through those years and finally erupts into the world outside her home and into the realization of what those years have done to her.  She discovers that she has yet to find what she is actually interested in and what she actually wants out of life after so many years trying desperately to anticipate her father’s next move and to protect herself from his abuse as best as she can.

Rachel spends some time after she leaves home trying to understand her father and have a different kind of relationship with him.  In thinking about his past she writes, “When I look at photographs of Dad at  his prom and on his bike and in the very first apartment he shared with Mom, I think maybe he was just too young.  That Dad hadn’t finished growing up himself before I came along.  That he didn’t know how to relate to children, so that when we demanded to be children he lost all sense of what to do.  Maybe Dad had never seen me as a child, or maybe he had and wanted me to remain one forever.  Or maybe it never sunk in that I was meant to become someone, that in the same way God had created man, not indentical to God but in God’s image, Dad had created me, so that I could create myself.  I know that in raising us the way he did, Dad saw himself as a model for right.  how badly he wanted us to arrive at our destination without straying too much from his path.”

Because her father continues to be abusive even in a long-distance relationship, Rachel eventually completely severs contact with him and concentrates on forging new relationships with her sister and mother.  She has difficulty forgiving her mother, “Unlike her, Mom’s children would have a family.  Even if that father was cruel.  Even if that family was a skeletal facade of what a family was supposed to be in Mom’s imagination, a dream still caught in response to her own childhood.  Mom didn’t protect us because we weren’t her priority.  Although I disagreed with her decision, I could understand it, yet I couldn’t help but see it as a question of character.  And the older I got the less I could excuse it…But the fact was she could have left and she didn’t.”  Despite these realizations, Rachel works on accepting herself, her mother, and her sister for who they all are.

I was struck time and again by the similarities both in Rachel’s situation to mine and the similarities between our coping mechanisms and our work later in life to reflect on what made us the way we are.  In the end this is a painful story of a family and the pain of leaving parts of that family behind to begin to form a life of your own making.

When I decided to read Skipping Towards Gomorrah, I thought I’d better pick up Slouching Towards Gomorrah too, in order to be fair and balanced and all that (side note: apparently the phrase is a reference to a book of Joan Didion’s essays, titled Slouching Towards Bethlehem, but I had to draw the line about how many books to include in this essay somewhere, even if Joan Didion insists on intruding herself on every book review I write). Unfortunately, I grossly overestimated my tolerance for Robert Bork’s brand of morality, and so I only made it through the first ten pages and even at that, felt like I’d been repeatedly beaten over the head with a hard-cover copy of Atlas Shrugged for hours. Bork – the only Supreme Court nominee whose last name has become a verb, that I know of, although I’d be curious to know what it would mean to “Ginsberg” someone – is pretty much a jerk, which I knew, but he’s also an inconsistent and confusing jerk, which was more than I could take. The major complaints he lays out in (the first ten pages of) his introduction are that liberalism is 1)too egalitarian (think affirmative action) and 2)too individualistic (think legalization of marijuana). To counter these trends, of course, he recommends that the right-thinking citizens of the country press for it to be, respectively, more individualistic (merit alone should determine college admission) and more collectivist (the right of the many to protect their children from drugs should supercede the right of the few to get high). I’m not quite sure how you’re supposed to figure out which side to be on, unless you read some comprehensive listing by a ratified neo-conservative. Honestly, the whole mess made me really sympathetic to the libertarians who, if nothing else, are vehemently consistent in their reasoning.
(Ten pages of) Bork’s book also made me increasingly appreciative for Savage’s funny, light, and just-a-touch meaty book. Committed to the idea that the founding fathers really meant it when they promised us “the pursuit of happiness,” Savage chases down happiness – or at least takes a good long look at other peoples’ happiness – in the form of the seven deadly sins: going gambling to get a look at greed, or spending some time at a swingers’ convention to understand lust. On the whole, it’s a meditation on whether anybody else gets hurt if a few million Americans decide to pursue some happiness, from being fat to shooting guns to going to a gay pride parade (high on ecstasy, natch).
And if there’s one thing that Savage is careful of, it’s hypocrisy. Of course, he has the advantage of having read and been disgusted by Bork’s book, but his chapter on gun ownership in particular recognizes how difficult it is to draw the line between personal-freedoms-that-make-you-happy and personal-freedoms-that-imperil-everyone-else (of course, he’s much more concerned about people’s safety than their everlasting soul). Savage is not an unrestricted hedonist, but he’s clear about his logic. And even if he hadn’t been, his book is a lot more fun than Bork’s.